Alot of Dispensationalist today will call themselves reformed. But none of them holds to any of the confessions written out in the Westminister Confession of Faith or the Heidelberg Confession or others. What they do is pick and choose what they want making a doctrine to fit their Premillennial and false rapture beliefs.
“The major Biblical problem with Dispensationalism is its teaching from Ezekiel’s temple vision that there will be a fourth temple built in Jerusalem with a priesthood and blood sacrifice while Jesus is reigning on the throne. That contradicts the message of Hebrews that Christ’s sacrifice was final, and that to continue animal sacrifice is an abomination and rejection of the only blood that removes sin.” The false Jewish Christians continued in the way they had been instructed until Christ removed the Temple. He gave the wicked generation 40 years , a significant number, to repent (Spring AD 31 to August AD 70), and then Titus destroyed the Temple – at Christ’s command. John the Baptist and Christ both predicted the destruction of Judea.
“The writer of Hebrews 9:11-15 points out something very important:
11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. 12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, 14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Then Hebrews 10:9-10
9 then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God.” He takes away the first that He may establish the second. 10 By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
The author of Hebrews says that the sacrificial system is over. Done. Finished.
It would be blasphemous to reinstitute the sacrificial system.”
There has been much bad ink spilled over the issue and a massive contradiction of Scripture and are there even any dispensationalist that are kind, gentile, peaceful? It seems that they are too often are still mean spirited to boot. It sounds like me that one is a dispensationalist because they do not want to accept the Bible at it’s word. Instead, a dispensationalist has attempted to invent false ways around things that disturb their falsely Jewish centered views and should immediately give one pause to believe in this modern theory of the False Doctrine of Dispensationalism. Are you willing to admit that the DISPENSATIONAL leaders themselves had practiced a “massive Christian contradiction” in their leadership of the Church?
Also a main difference of interpretation by the dispensationalists is that it is man or Jew centered, not Christ centered, rather where is the location of Christ’s throne during his Millennium reign – is it on earth in Old Jerusalem, or is it at the right hand of God the Father in Heaven? in the New Jerusalem.
Dispensationalism is a false method of interpreting the scriptures that sees two distinct peoples of God, with two distinct destinies Israel and the Church.
*Also see John MacArthur calls out amillennialism and others. http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/a-reply-to-john-macarthur John MacArthurs teaching is either correct or it is false there is no other way. It is not me to judge a mans salvation but anyone who teaches dispensationalism in any form is a false teacher regardless of whether or not he is saved or not
*A problem with returning to the types and shadows http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/the-latest-post/2008/6/4/a-return-to-types-and-shadows-in-the-millennial-age-a-proble.html
The dispensational premills, following Scofield, added a seven-year period between the second coming and the beginning of the millennium. In the middle of that interim (of seven years) the Antichrist will emerge bringing on the great tribulation and leading to a return to the pre-Christian ceremonies of the Mosaic law. In the dispensational view, during the millennium the saints live and reign with Christ and the Jews rule on earth. The historic premills, however, reject these additions.
I am not clear on all the details of that difference, but the historic premills reject any return to or reinstatement of the ceremonial law.
And why does the OPC regard dispensationalism as a serious error? In the main because it is contrary to the biblical doctrine of the covenant.
The Bible teaches two covenants: the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace. In the Covenant of Works God created mankind under one federal head—Adam. Romans 5:12 tells us that when Adam sinned, all mankind descending from him by natural generation sinned in him and fell with him. The Covenant of Grace was instituted to deliver out of those under the curse of Adam’s sin a new humanity with a new head—Jesus Christ.
Romans 5:13-19 compares and contrasts the two covenants and their results through the actions of their heads: Adam brought sin and misery leading to death; Christ brought redemption from that sin and its curse leading to life.
This is also taught in 1 Corinthians 15, the great chapter on the resurrection of Christ leading to the resurrection of His people. Notice that in verse 22 we are told that all who die, die in Adam, and all who are made alive are made alive in Christ. Later, verses 45-49 again deal with the relation between the two covenant heads and the contrast between them. (“Adam” in Hebrew means “man.”) In v. 47 the first man was surely Adam, made from earth (Gen. 2:7); the second man was Christ, “the Lord from heaven.”
We all were born in Adam (except Jesus, who was born of a virgin, and not by natural generation). By way of contrast, 2 Corinthians 5:17 says that “If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature (or a new creation)….” This is the heart of the Scripture teaching.
Old Testament covenants, we believe, are but administrations of the one covenant of grace. Even the book of Hebrews, which exalts the contrast between the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant, does not utterly divide them. “And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect” (11:39-40). Add to that Galatians 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor Greek [Gentile] …; for we are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Dispensationalism divides what God has put together. It is difficult to define dispensationalism precisely because, especially after the demise of the original Scofield Reference Bible, dispensationalists have differed in many ways. The core of dispensationalism, however, continues to be that the Old Testament people of God are distinct from the New Testament church.
And though modern dispensationalists admit that the OT people are saved by the grace of Christ’s cross (and that is good!), yet God’s dealing with them is on the basis of law-keeping rather than grace. Whether there be seven dispensations (as Scofield taught) or but two (as some hold today), the separation between Jew and Gentile is deep and bordering on the absolute. That’s what makes them distinguish between the church and Israel, saying that the church is not in the Old Testament. But, I say, how can one make that claim when the book of Isaiah is full of prophecies of the church?
I don’t want to overstate the issue, but I think the principal issue between us is their emphasis that Law is predominant in the OT and Grace in the NT. But there is great grace in the Old Testament, and law is not ignored in the New. Romans 3:19-20 clearly says that the Law doesn’t save, but Law is the servant of grace because, “by the law is the knowledge of sin.” Then follows that great passage on justification. Then notice that, in chapter 4, the Apostle attributes justifying faith to Abraham!
Just one more thing: All dispensationalists justify building their millennial belief on their interpretation of 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18. From this passage they claim two coming resurrections from the dead—the righteous at the second coming and the wicked in Revelation 20:11-15. They completely ignore two things: Revelation 20 teaches that ALL the dead are raised at one time (cf. John 5:28-29), and Paul’s teaching on the resurrection in 1 Thessalonians carries over into chapter 5:1-11.
The Apostle goes on in the next chapter to describe anything but a “secret rapture”! Furthermore, the Apostle’s reason for not mentioning the resurrection of the wicked in chapter 4 was the question as to the present condition of the believing dead in v. 13. He ends that portion with words of comfort in v. 18. But continuing his teaching on the second coming of Christ, he ends that segment in chapter 5 in v. 11: “Therefore encourage one another ….” **Info here is from the Orthodox Presbyterian Church:
Dispensationalism proposes that Postponed Kingdom will occur in the Millennium and will consist of a physical throne in Jerusalem, in the middle east, where Jesus Christ will actually and physically sit in the earth. They claim Jesus is not seated as of yet on this throne, the Throne of David. Since David sat on his throne on the earth in Jerusalem, they feel that Jesus cannot be on the throne of David unless He is on the earth in Jerusalem, as well. This is not what the Throne of David is referring to. The throne of David is a term used that is very similar to speaking about the House of David. David’s House in scripture is not talking about the actual place of his residence where he and his family lived. It is speaking about his family, itself. The Throne of David is speaking about David’s dynasty, not the physical chair on which a king sits. Saul lost the throne and it was taken from Saul’s family to David’s family. It was prophesied that every king after David would be from David’s family, hence the throne refers to David’s dynasty.
At any rate, to have a physical kingdom with a physical palace in Israel during the Millennium contradicts Jesus Christ’s own words concerning the fact that the Kingdom does not come with observation. You will never be able to say, “Lo here,” or “Lo, there,” for the Kingdom is not physical but is in you (Luke 17:20-21). So, the Dispensational idea of a physical kingdom contradicts the words of Jesus Christ! Paul also said that the Kingdom of God is righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost. These are inward, spiritual elements. The Kingdom is already here, and has been here since the Day of Pentecost! When Jesus said it was at hand, He was not mistaken as though He did not expect the Jews to reject Him and cause a postponement of that Kingdom. It was at hand two thousand years ago, even when Israel rejected Him.
Jesus said that if He casts out devils by the finger of God then we know the kingdom of God is come (Luke 11:20).
In order to make Dispensationalism “fit”, the teachers have to create the false notion that the Kingdom of Heaven is not the same thing as the Kingdom of God. One dispensationalist wrote these words, “Knowing the doctrinal difference between the terms ‘Kingdom of Heaven’ and ‘Kingdom of God’ is the key to understanding the complete time line of Biblical history past, present, and future, the proper place of the Church, and the prophetic future of Israel.”.
What he actually meant was that without creating this mistaken distinction, Dispensationalism does not work.
These teachers agree the “Kingdom of God” is here now in Spiritual form, but “the Kingdom of Heaven” is going to come after once the Millennium begins in our future. The fact is that the two are one and the same Kingdom! They are synonyms of the same Kingdom. Let me prove it.
“Kingdom of God” occurs 68 times in the New Testament. “Kingdom of Heaven” only occurs 10 times. The Gospel of Matthew is the only book that uses the term “Kingdom of Heaven”. Dispensationalists come up with all sorts of remarks about that. they claim Matthew was written primarily to the Jews, and deals with Millennium teachings, whereas the other Gospels that mention the “Kingdom of God” are dealing with the church age. They use that same argument to say that the same conversations found in Matthew 24 and Luke 21 actually contain two different conversations. The one in Luke is dealing about events that transpired in AD70, whereas Matthew 24 is speaking about our future and not AD70. If we can see that the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven are one and the same thing, then another leg of Dispensationalism is taken out from beneath the teaching.
The account of the rich young ruler in Matthew 19 includes Jesus’ words saying, “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19:23). In the very next verse, Jesus exchanged the term “Kingdom of God” for “Kingdom of Heaven”, and said this, “Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” He explicitly stated He repeated Himself when He said, “Again I say unto you.” To use the term “Kingdom of God” in repetition of His point lets us know the two phrases are speaking about the same thing. The Kingdom of God is nothing different than the Kingdom of Heaven! The Kingdom of Heaven is not a Millennial Kingdom that has not yet come.
Jesus said these words:
Matthew 11:11-12 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. (12) And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.
Luke accounted the same statement by Jesus and used these words:
Luke 7:28 For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.
Which makes more reasonable sense?
There is a rule of logic and reason that fits this question quite well. It is called Occam’s Razor. This rule states that when a person considers the possibilities of different explanations for the same situation, the explanation that allows for the least possible assumptions is most likely the correct one. In other words, the simplest solution is the best one. To claim that the two titles refer to two different kingdoms, which the Bible does not even plainly state as being two different Kingdoms, takes a lot of scriptural gymnastics. But considering the two titles as referring to the same kingdom right now, and seeing Jesus actually use the terms synonymously from one verse to the next, simplifies the thought very much. Info from Internet no name given.